Skip to main content
Glama

site

by com.comparevetsoftware

Submit an ENQUIRY to human providers (two steps; not a purchase)

submit_enquiry

Submits an enquiry to Compare Vet Software — NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote. Step 1: call with the answers (keyed by field key from enquiry_fields) and consent=true; it validates and returns a summary, the consent line and a confirmation token — show the person the summary and the consent line. Step 2: only if the person agrees, call again with the same answers, consent=true and the confirmation token; the enquiry is then submitted, and the person receives an email with a link they must click before any provider sees it. Consent means the person has read and agreed to: "Happy for my details to go to a veterinary software specialist, who'll contact me directly."

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answersYesthe person's answers, keyed by field key
consentYestrue only when the person has agreed to: Happy for my details to go to a veterinary software specialist, who'll contact me directly.
confirmationNothe confirmation token from step 1, after the person has approved the summary

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: validation and return of a summary/consent line/token in Step 1, email with a required click-through before providers see it in Step 2, and the exact consent wording. Side effects and sequencing are clearly disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place, front-loading the essential non-purchase caveat and then structuring the process into clear Step 1 and Step 2 instructions. There is no filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and a nested answers object, the description is remarkably complete: it specifies input requirements, both call steps, the agreement condition, consent wording, and the post-submission email link requirement. No critical behavior is left unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that consent maps to the precise quoted statement, and that confirmation is the Step 1 token required for Step 2. This adds value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource — 'Submits an enquiry to Compare Vet Software' — and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). The two-step nature is clearly conveyed, and the tool is readily distinguished from sibling comparison and enquiry-description tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly describes when and how to call the tool: Step 1 with answers keyed by field key from enquiry_fields and consent=true, then Step 2 only after the person agrees, using the same answers and the confirmation token. It also names a companion tool, enquiry_fields, and forbids treating it as a purchase or quote.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All site toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The three compare tools are clearly separated into criteria/filters, options list, and full comparison table, while the three enquiry tools cover description, fields, and submission. There is minor potential confusion between compare_criteria and compare_table, but their descriptions make the boundary clear.

Naming Consistency3/5

compare_criteria, compare_options, compare_table, and submit_enquiry follow a verb_noun pattern, but enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields break that pattern with a noun-first convention. The split is readable but not fully consistent.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well-scoped for a comparison-and-enquiry workflow. Each tool serves a distinct step in browsing the comparison or submitting an enquiry, with no redundant tools.

Completeness5/5

The toolset covers the full user journey: exploring criteria, options, and the full table, then understanding, preparing, and submitting an enquiry with a two-step confirmation flow. There are no obvious missing operations or dead ends.

Resources